E D I T O R I A L C O U N C I L V. MAKAROV A. GUSEYNOV Chairman Editor-in-Chief Academician of RAS Academician of RAS M E M B E R S O F T H E C O U N C I L A. CHUBARYAN, Academician G. OSIPOV, Academician A. DEREVYANKO, Academician V. TISHKOV, Academician R. GRINBERG, Corr. Mem., RAS Zh. TOSHCHENKO, Corr. Mem., RAS V. LEKTORSKY, Academician Yu. VOROTNIKOV, Corr. Mem., RAS A. NEKIPELOV, Academician Production Manager: Len Hoffman SOCIAL SCIENCES (ISSN 0134-5486) is a quarterly publication of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). The articles selected by the Editorial Council are chosen from the journals and books originally prepared in the Russian language by the authors from institutes of RAS and Russian universities. Statements of fact and opinion appearing in the journal are made on the responsibility of the authors alone and do not imply the endorsement of the Editorial Council. SOCIAL SCIENCES (print ISSN 0134-5486; online ISSN 1938-2553) is published quarterly by East View Information Services: 10601 Wayzata Blvd., Minneapolis, MN 55305, USA. Vol. 51, No. 2, 2020. Postmaster: Send address changes to East View Information Services: 10601 Wayzata Blvd., Minneapolis, MN 55305, USA. Orders are accepted by East View Information Services. Phone: (952) 252-1201; Toll-free: (800) 477-1005; Fax: (952) 252-1201; E-mail: [email protected] as well as by all major subscription agencies. Print subscriptions: individuals, $117.00 per year; institutions, $767.00 per year. Electronic subscriptions: individuals, $110.00 per year; institutions, $722.00 per year. SOCIAL SCIENCES is indexed by Scopus, PAIS International Information Service, American Bibliography of Slavic and East European Studies (ABSEES), International Bibliography of Periodical Literature, Internation al Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Sociological Abstracts, Social Planning Policy & Development Abstracts, Linguistic & Language Behavior Abstracts, and UnCover. It is abstracted by the Journal of Economic Literature . It is listed in the Ulrich's International Periodical Directory . Copyright © The Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). FOUNDED IN 1970 RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES S o c i a l S c i e n c e S VOLUME 51 NUMBER 2, 2020 C O N T E N T S In This Issue 1 FOCUS ON RUSSIA “Liberals” vs. “Democrats”: Ideational Trajectories of Russia’s Post-Communist Transformation V. Gel’man 4 Typical Views, Attitudes and Self-Identifications in Principal Strata of Today’s Russian Society N. Tikhonova 25 Jews in Contemporary Russia: Assimilation and Dissimilation A. Levinson 46 ESSAYS Crisis of the Union State of Russia and Belarus A. Suzdaltsev 68 The Stalin Prizes of Architect Ivan Zholtovsky (1940-1953) O. Shurygina 84 Leo Tolstoy and Non-Resistance to Evil by Violence: The History and Critique of the “Innocent Victim” Argument K. Troitskiy 96 The Logic of Ivan Goncharov’s Creative Work: Stating the Problem V. Melnik 112 “Nestor of Slavic Studies”: 125th Birth Anniversary of Dmitry Chizhevsky E. Zadorozhnyuk 132 BOOK REVIEWS Russia-XXI: A View from the Near Abroad A. Lukin 144 Book Review: Askar Nursha. Putin ’s Russia : Geopolitical Revenge or Aggressive Defense ? Almaty: Gerona, 2018 ACADEMIC LIFE Academic Journals 153 96 SOCIAL SCIENCES Vol. 51, No. 2, 2020 Leo Tolstoy and Non-Resistance to Evil by Violence: The History and Critique of the “Innocent Victim” Argument Konstantin TROITSKIY Abstract. In this article I defend the non-violence position, assert the immutability of the absolute ban on violence and demonstrate that Leo Tol - stoy’s criticism of the “innocent victim” argument is valid and relevant. The article describes the first appearance of the “innocent victim” argument in Tolstoy’s novel Anna Karenina, critically analyses the subsequent modifica - tions of this argument by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Vladimir Solovyov, Ivan Ilyin and Anatoly Lunacharsky and sums up Tolstoy’s objections to the argu - ment. In addition to describing the historical context of the discussion about non-violence, the article offers a critical analysis of the structure of the argu - ment. The “innocent victim” argument has a number of flaws that concern both its idea, internal structure, and practical orientation. As a result of these defects this argument should be regarded as immoral. The structure of the “innocent victim” argument aimed at refuting the idea of non-resistance to evil by violence, is not unique and occurs in other ethical discussions that took place in Tolstoy’s lifetime and after his death. The popularity and con - stant recurrence of attempts to justify violence makes the task aimed at researching history and criticizing the “innocent victim” argument important and relevant. Keywords: Leo Tolstoy, non-violence, non-resistance to evil by vio - lence, morality, ethics, the “innocent victim” argument. http://dx.doi.org/10.21557/SSC.60231519 K. Troitskiy, Cand. Sc. (Philosophy), research fellow, Institute of Philosophy, Russian Acad - emy of Sciences. E-mail: [email protected]. This article was written in Russian for the journal Gumanitarniye Vedomosti of TSPU (Bulletin of the Humanities. 2020. No. 1). Leo Tolstoy and Non-Resistance to Evil by Violence 97 Introduction Ethical discussions of non-violence at scientific conferences as well as argu - ments about non-resistance in daily life frequently lead to the discussion of one and the same imaginary “case.” At a certain stage in the conversation , those who object to the thesis that the moral ban on violence is absolute often challenge the adherent of non-violence to conduct a mental experiment in which the champion of an absolute ban sees a “villain” threatening violence toward an “innocent vic - tim.” It is assumed that the “villain” can only be stopped by killing him. Ending the description of the experiment, the party that maintains that there is no absolute ban on violence asks triumphantly whether the champion of the ban would passively observe or implore the “villain” who is in the process of maim - ing and killing “the innocent victim.” Thus, the classical version of the argument describes a situation in which the “villain” or “group of villains” (for example, “robbers” or “drunks”) threatens to commit terrible violence against an “innocent victim” (for example, “a helpless virgin” or “a child”). Before presenting the argument, the question is asked: what would he/she do if the only way to prevent the terrible act of violence were to kill “the villain”? Following some other Russian scholars, let us call it the “inno - cent victim” argument (see, for example, [3; 8]). The underlying scheme of the “innocent victim” argument is not unique, it is used in other arguments aimed at dismantling other absolute bans, for example, a ban on lying and torture. A sim - ilar scheme is examined by Immanuel Kant in his famous essay On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns , and much later under the “tick - ing bomb” scenario. Variations consisted in a change of the initial conditions of the imaginary situation, that is, the type of action indicated by the presenter of the argument as being “necessary” to stop the villain’s evil designs. The aim of the variations was to prove that the moral ban on lying and torture is not absolute. The popularity and constant recurrence of attempts to justify violence and lying, usually accompanied by attempts to elevate them to the position of ordi - nary practice, makes the task of investigating the history of and, most impor - tantly, refuting the “innocent victim” argument and criticizing the underlying scheme particularly relevant and important. Dostoyevsky, Solovyov, Ilyin, and Lunacharsky vs. Leo Tolstoy The remarks of Konstantin Levin in Anna Karenina , the most autobiograph - ical of Tolstoy’s novels, anticipate his teaching on non-resistance to evil by vio - lence, with the objections raised by Sergey Koznyshev, Levin’s brother, being the first presentation to a large audience of the “innocent victim” argument. It hap - pens in the final part of the novel, the part that barely got past the censors. In it Levin learns that Vronsky intends to go to Serbia to fight against the Turks, which triggers an argument in which Koznyshev, unlike Levin, approves of his intention. 98 SOCIAL SCIENCES Vol. 51, No. 2, 2020 Koznyshev frowned at Katavasov’s words and said something different. ‘The question shouldn’t be put that way. There is no declaration of war here, but simply the expression of human, Christian feeling. They’re killing our brothers, of the same blood, of the same religion. Well, suppose they weren’t even our brothers, our co-religionists, but simply children, women, old men; indignation is aroused, and the Russian people run to help stop these horrors. Imagine yourself going down the street and seeing some drunk beating a woman or a child, I don’t think you’d start asking whether war had or had not been declared on the man, but would fall upon him and protect the victim.’ ‘But I wouldn’t kill him,’ said Levin. ‘Yes, you would.’ ‘I don’t know. If I saw it, I would yield to my immediate feeling, but I can’t say beforehand. And there is not and cannot be such an immediate feeling about the oppression of the Slavs’ [11, pp. 387-388; 12, p. 541]. Fyodor Dostoyevsky , who was reading Tolstoy’s novel as it was being seri - alized in the issues of the Russky vestnik (Russian Herald) journal, reacted angri - ly to the above-quoted extract in a lengthy entry in his diary. Dostoyevsky believed that the argument was presented “with the intent of winding it up with Levin’s victory,” and that Koznyshev’s “drunken man” argument was not very convincing: “he speaks nonsense, since who, when helping a woman beaten by drunken men, is going to kill them?” [1, p.